Why Make it so Complicated?

Developing B&W at the kitchen sink is easy. I did it when I was 12, taught by my Dad. But some people seem to want to make it so complicated with developers that are mixed from powder, chemical stop baths and all sorts of nonsense. The stop bath in particular, what a total waste of time. Just another chemical to mix, store, bring to temperature and ultimately flush down the sink. The argument is that it instantly arrests development, but come on, think about it. There's what, 1ml of working strength developer on the film once you drain the tank? Then you add 300ml of water as a rinse and give it a shake. How long will it take for that dilution of developer to make any noticeable difference to your negs. An hour? A day? A week? Right. So here's the Agitated Dog top three tips for keeping it simple.


1. Don't do a pre-soak. No need. I've never done it. I've never seen anyone with any evidence that it helps anything. On top of that Ilford specifically say not to pre-soak. Don't do it, waste of time. Waste of water.
2. Don't use powdered developers. Yes I'm talking about the much loved D-76 and the slightly less loved !D-11. Why waste time with all the mixing from powder and storing the stock solution. There are plenty of liquid one shot developers that do exactly the same thing without all that messing about. Paterson Aculux 3, Ilfosol 3, HC-110, Ilfotec HC etc etc.
3. Don't bother with a chemical stop. Use water. After draining the tank, fill with water, five rapid inversions, drain, repeat, then in with the fix. Probably worth making sure the water temperature is close to the dev temperature. Do it the same every time and you'll have repeatable results. Same every time. Just like the chemical stop guys. Simple huh?

And that's it. Hey I don't even use a wetting agent most of the time. Heresy I know. But that's just me, as the oh-so-cute TV ad goes.

Project: Foth 6x9 Pinhole Part 3

Yesterday I managed to find half an hour to run a film through the Foth pinhole. In fact two films. The first roll jammed and ripped the backing paper. Roll 2 was more successful, but has raised a couple of issues. Firstly, the cardboard lens stop doesn't work. The whole front standard tends to pull back into the camera with the slightest touch. A gust of wind or even the action of the cable release. I need to work on that, a new part will be made of aluminium, and will lock the lens standard in place. Secondly, having developed the film, it's clear that I have some major light leaks. I'm pretty certain the bellows are light tight, but closer examination shows they're not fixed securely to the camera! It looks as it the glue the factory used 85 years ago has failed. On the plus side, from what I can see of the image, the pinhole is a goodun. So I have a bit of work to do to on the Foth pinhole.In the meantime, here's a couple of pic from the first film:

 

50 second exposures on Ilford HP5+ with a lot of fogging due to those light leaks. Developed, 11 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 at 20°

The tale of the three bears

The title is slightly misleading. You see, as I type this, there are three bears, but I'm expecting a fourth in the post any time now. What the hack am I going on about? Well it's more of those teddy bear photograph. I've had the same scan of it printed as a 6x4 by four different photo finishers, just to see how they differ, and which one I like best. Three are beside my MacBook from Truprint, SnapMad and Ilford LabDirect. The forth is on its way from PhotoBox, who I've been using since 2003. As I had to dismantle my darkroom, this is the only way I can get a back & white print now. So which one is best?

First, the photograph. It was taken with a Nikon FE with a AIS 50mm f1.8 on Delta 400 and developed in Aculux 3. It's 'Big Ted' on the sofa, being held tightly by Linda whilst she watched the telly. Nothing amazing, just a picture I like with some nice lighting and tones. It's never been printed optically, so I've only ever had the scan to look at. This was made with my now ancient Acer 2720S dedicated film scanner at 2700dpi and re sized down 1800 x 1200 pixels, to give 6"x4" @ 300ppi.

The first bear to arrive was from Truprint, but that's because I ordered it a week before the others. Initially I was thrilled. The colour was very neutral. It was a little grainy in the darker mid tones, and I put that down to my scanner's love of finding grain in anything over iso 100. But then, the SnapMad and Ilford prints arrived in the same post. The snap mad was slightly darker and a bit warm toned. For some reason I chose not to click the 'make this b&w' button, so I'm sure a neutral toned b&w is possible. But as soon as I saw that it had so much less grain, the Truprint version started to look bad. Really Bad. Both prints were 9p each, and SnapMad has free P&P if you spend over 99p.

Truprint - grainy

99p? Wow, that's really good value and makes the Ilford print very expensive at £1.25 + postage. The difference with Ilford though is that they print the digital file via lasers onto real silver gelatin black & white paper. Not the Fuji Crystal Archive that everyone else seems to use. Now there's nothing wrong with the Fuji paper. For colour, it's fantastic stuff. But as a chromogenic material, the final image is made up of three layers of coloured dye rather than grains of real silver. This is why black & white prints made on colour paper look fundamentally different to prints made on real black & white paper. And explains why you'll sometimes get a colour cast. The result from Ilford is superb. Not only does it look like a real black & white print - after all it is a real black & white print, but the grain is gone. I can't quite understand why, but instead of grain, there are smooth tones from the shadows though the mids into the highlights. The only way to get a better print is to print optically, something that would be expensive to do unless you have your own darkroom. If I wanted to make prints for display, I'd go with Ilford, no question.

So what about the Photobox print? Like Truprint and SnapMad it's on Fuji Crystal Archive, but they're better than either. They match what I see on my screen closer that Snapmad, and haven't got the wierd grain of Truprint. The tone is neutral but of course, not a patch on the Ilford.

Ilford LabDirect. Smoother tones and real B&W paper!

Conclusion. I'll use PhotoBox for day to day stuff, and for colour. For prints that are going an the wall, I'll pay the extra and get the real thing from Ilford.